Planning Board March 19,2024 Minutes  The Morehead City Planning Board conducted a public meeting on Tuesday, March 19, 2024, in the City Hall Council Chambers at 1100 Bridges Street at 5:30 p.m. The following MEMBERS: Diana' Tootle, Nathan Chambers, Glenn Curtis, Matt Johnson, Ronetta  people were present:  Gaskill and Curtis Oden, Jr.  ABSENT: Sally Lumpkin  Others present: Planning and Inspections Director Sandi Watkins, Planner Annie Bunnell, Planning Board Secretary Rachel Steiger, City Attorney Derek Taylor, Ron Cullipher, Ray Hopper, Judy Dickinson, Skip Conklin, Glenn Seago, Josh Bell, Mike Kennedy, Kevin M Shaver, Tom Vicars, Frank Styers Jr., Tim Abell, John Joyner, Sheilah Cotte, Gina Stick, Steve Valentine, June Kystad, Bill Hub, Mark Strickland, Russell Shephen, Nancy Shephen, Tilden  Collier, and other interested citizens.  Vice Chairperson Diana Tootle called the: meeting to order and Curtis Oden, Jr. gave the  invocation.  Ronetta Gaskill led the Pledge of Allegiance.  The roll was called, and Sally Lumpkin was absent. Matt Johnson made MOTION, seconded by Curtis Oden, Jrt to excuse the called-in absence. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Tootle asked Board members to take a moment to review the minutes from the February 21, 2024, meeting. Shet then asked: for ai motion to approve the minutes. MINUTES: February 21, 2024: Ronetta Gaskill made MOTION, seconded by Nathan Chambers to adoptt the minutes and dispense with the reading. Ther motion carried unanimously. Vice Chairperson Tootle asked if any Board member had a conflict of interest. She Vice Chairperson Tootle stated the Board's policy for public comment prior to the  reviewed the Conflict-of-Interest Statement as shown ont the screen. discussion request including speaker time limitations.  NEWBUSINESS:  A). Request submitted by the Cullipher Group, P.A., on behalf of property owner Peletier Partners, LLC, to rezone 113 Lake Avenue (Tax PIN #636615732771000 from CM (Commercial Marina District) to 0&P-CZ (Office and. Professional Conditional Zoning District). for a proposed nine (9) unit multifamily development. Current Zoning: CM (Commercial Marina) District. Proposed Zoning: O&P-CZ (Ofice & Profèssional - Conditional: Zoning) District. Effèctive Flood Zone: AE7. Total Area:. .76Acres (32,915.56. Square Feet). The applicant has submitteda request tor rezone. .76a acres located at 1131 Lake Avenue from CM (Commercial. Marina District) to 0&P-CZ for proposed 9-unit multifamily condominium development. Thep property is locatedy withint the CorporateI Limits anda al 1940'ss single-family dwelling isc currently located ont thes site. The development proposes tob be Thep propertyi isl locatedi int the) Midtownl Neighborhood! Planning Area andi is classified as Neighborhood. Residentiali in The Morehead City Plan. 2032. The applicant-supplied consistency statement as well as a draft Planning Board resolution (drafted based upon applicant responses) have both been provided witht the agenda materials fort thisi item. This draftr may bez adopteda asv written, modified, orr rewritten ini its entirety by theF Planning Board. The applicant has agreedt to al list ofc conditions to attach tot the property if the rezoning request is approved. Those conditions are included at thee end oft this report. Changes qualifying as major modifications tot the approved plan or conditions would bes subjectt to amendment throught thec conditional: zoning map amendment process. Uses: The requested uses for the development include "Dwelling, multifamily", "Accessory building/use", (nonconforming) Recreation use, outdoor (marina), and signage. The applicant has noti indicated any specific uses within the required open space recreation areas. The boat slips proposed as part of the development are currently existing ont thes site. Because existing! boat slipr number one (1) extends over thep property line in front ofLake Avenue, the Public Services Department! has indicated that an encroachment agreement willl be required with the Town. This has been included ina a proposed condition and agreed upon by the applicant. The applicant has also agreed to an additional condition ofa approval capping ther number ofboats slipst to amaximum ofr nine (9)s slips.  served! by! Morehead City watera and sewer.    Morehead Cityl Planning Board  Page2  March 19,2024  Zoning: Surrounding zoning includes Planned Development (PD) District to the north; Planned Development (PD) District to the west across Lake Avenue; Office & Professional (OP) District tot the northwest across Lake Avenue; and Commercial Marina (CM)I Districtt to the east. Surrounding land usei includes two single-family dwellings anda parcel containing only ana accessory structure to ther northwest; twor multifamily developments (Harborside Yacht Club and Mariner's Cove)t tot ther north, west, and aportion ofthe east; two single-family dwellings tot the east; and Peletier Creek to thes south. The area lying between Neuse Avenue and Lake Avenue from Central Drive and Peletier Creek north to Arendell Street wasi initially zoned CM District when the area was annexed into the corporate limits in Minimum Lot Size: The minimum lots size for a multifamily development int the OP District is eighteen thousand Lot Coverage: The amount of area permitted under roofi isl limitedt to a maximum of 40% ofa site int the Office and Professionall District." The maximum lot coverage would bel limited to 13,166.22 square feet for thep project site. The Density: Ther maximum allowable density is based upon fivet thousand (5,000) square feeti for the first unit and three thousand (3,000) square feet per 24-bedroom uniti fora at total of 29,000 squaref feetr requiredf fora project proposing nine (9) units. The projects site contains 32,915.56 square feet, meetingt the density requirement. The overall density ofthe Open Space: Section 13-2.2(E) of the UDO requires al minimum of five hundred (500) square feet per unit be preserved as open space. Thep projectr requires 4,500 square feet ofo open space andp proposes 4,629 square feet ofo open space whichi iss showni int two areas: along ther northern property line behind thel landward condominium building and tot thee east ofparking spaces 8-11.7 The applicant! hasi indicated thatt these areas willl be: for passive recreational uses. Height: The maximum height permitted ini the OP district is 70 above average finished grade. The applicant has Sides: 23'/ /27- Four-Story units proposed. (20' two-side aggregate: forf first floor w/8 8' minimum, plus 5' additional Rear: Thisp property doest not! have arears setback, but rather hast twof front andt twos sides setbacks. Parking: Parkings spaces must bea minimum ofninet feet (9)i in width and eighteen feet (18') inl length pers subsection 20-2 oft the UDO. Parkingf forr multifamily is required ata arate oft two (2) spaces per unit! plus one (1) additional space for every six (6) units for overflow parking. Based upon nine (9) proposed units, at total oft twenty (20) spaces are required. Of these spaces, one must be a van-accessible ADA parking space. One ADA space has been shown Access: As proposed, there aret two access points to thes site. Thes southermost access is also an easement for the two neighboring properties to the east (115 and 117) Lake Avenue) and provides access to the three proposed units to be located within the waterfront condominium building, only. There are two existing recorded easements, which have been delineated ont thep plan spatially and with reference number labels. Thes southernmost: access is currently existing Permits: The developer has agreed to a condition indicating that the development will require the following NCI Department of Environmental Quality and NC Public Water Supply Water Distribution and Sewer  November of1 1993.  Multifamily, Plan Review Requirements:  (18,000)s square feet. This project contains 32,915.56s square feet. proposed] loto coveragei is 6,030s square feet orl 18.32%. projecti isa approximately 12r residential dwellingt units pera acre.  noted ont thep plant thatt ther maximum building! heightis cappeda ati fifty feet (50). Setbacks: Requireds setbacks fort the development: are asi follows: Front (AlongI Lake Avenue anda along) Peletier Creek): 25  perf floor pers side.)  (parkings spacer number 14).  ont thes site.  permits/approvals bes submitted prior tol building permit issuance: NCDivision ofC Coastal Management CAMA Major) Permit NCI Department ofEnergy, Land, andl Mineral Resources- Stormwater) Permit Landscaping: Landscaping! is proposed as depicted int thef followingt table.  connection approvals Area 10' Strip (Lake Avenue) 2.5' Strip (parking area/drive aisles) Landscaping Islands  Required Plantings 6U Understory' Trees and 34 Shrubs 8Understory Trees and 25 Shrubs 4Understory Trees  Proposed Plantings 6Understory Trees and 35 Shrubs 8Understory Trees and 26 Shrubs 40 Understory Trees  Lighting Plan: Al lighting plan has been submitted and will be evaluated for compliance with section 13-2.2 (K) duringb building permitp plant review.. Any approval should bec contingent upon approval ofthel lighting plan. Drainage Impact Statement: The applicant has submitted a drainage impacts statement which has been included with Utilities: The project isl located within the corporate limits and will bes serviced by Morehead City water and sewer Technical Review: The plan details have been reviewed and approved by thel Planning Department, Public Services  Sidewalks: Af five-foot-wide (5') sidewalk ist proposed along Lake Avenue.  thea agendar materials. utilities.  Waste Container Site: One dumpster hast beens shown ont ther northeast portion ofthe site plan. Department andl Fire Departmentb based upont this phase ofd development.    Morehead City Planning) Board  Page3  March 19,2024  Conditional Zoning Request: Conditional zoningi involves legislative map amendment with site-specific conditions incorporated into the zoning map amendment. This type of zoning is established to provide flexibility in the development ofp property while ensuringt that development is compatible with neighboring uses. Conditional zoning affords a degree ofc certainty inl land use decisions nott typically possiblei in conventional: zoning. Since this request is for conditional zoning, specific conditions may be proposed by the petitioner or the Planning Board or Council. Only those conditions approved by the Town Council and consented tob by thep petitioner in writing Conditions ands site-specific standards imposed inac conditional zoning district shall be limited to those that address conformance oft the development and use of the site to local ordinances and plans or to the impacts reasonably expectedt tol bes generated by the development or use oft the site.) Please sees section 10-7.3 ofthe Unified Asa conditional zoning amendment, no other uses may be located on the property except those uses stated int the application materials. The development and use of the property shall be governed by the ordinance requirements applicable tot the Office and Professional zoning district, general conformance with the approved site and additional approved conditions. Conditions: Any recommendation of approval of the request should be contingent upon the following applicant- agreed upon conditions (as written or modified): AI maximum of9 dwelling units. Amaximum ofn nine boats slips willl bep permitted: fort this development. All boat slips must be deeded to condominium unit owners within the proposed development. No renting or leasing ofboats slips will bep permitted. Uses on the property will be limited to "dwelling, multifamily", "accessory building/use", (nonconforming) "recreation use, outdoor (marina)", and signage. Ane encroachment agreement willl ber required forb boats slip# #1. Approval will be contingent upon receipt of state permitting to include: water/sewer, stormwater, sedimentation: ande erosion control (if/when applicablez andi required). Submission of ani instrument recorded at the Carteret County Register of Deeds which states that the garage parkingr must remain accessible and dedicatedi for vehicular parking prior tol building permiti issuance. Submission of ana approved lighting plani in accordance with 13-2.2 (K) ofthe UDO. Notice ofA Meeting: The request has been advertised in the Carteret County News-Times, abutting property owners werer notified, andt thep properties have been posted with public! hearing signs. Public Hearing Date: The item is anticipated to be placed on the April 9, 2024, Council  may bei incorporatedi into thez zoningi regulations.  Ordinance: fore examples of conditions that may bec considered.  Development plan, any  CAMA,  consideration. forl Ms. Bunnell.  City  Agenda for  Planner Annie Bunnell introduced the request by reviewing the staff report. Ms. Bunnell stated that there was only one inquiry for the application. The Planning Board had no questions The applicant, Ron Cullipher, approached the podium to present his request. Mr. Cullipher stated that the presented site plan would be compliant with regulations. Mr. Cullipher stated that the proposed use would be appropriate for the presented property. Mr. Cullipher continued by reviewing the permitted and special uses for Commercial Marina zone. The proposed use would be rezoned as Office and Professional zone. Mr. Cullipher went over the surrounding properties and what is located there, mentioning Harborside Club to the north and Mariners Cove to the west of the property. Mr. Cullipher stated that the Commercial Marina use at this location has not been successful. A residential use would put the property into the tax base and would be an appropriate use to rezone to provide additional housing. Mr. concluded by respectfully requesting the Planning Board to approve the request. Mark Strickland approached the podium ini favor oft the request. Mr. Strickland is one of the four partners in Peletier Partners, LLC. Peletier Partners, LLC are the owners and proposed developers oft the property. Mr. Strickland stated that himself and other owners have been using this property as a marina for many years. Mr. Stickland said that the location has sentimental value to him. When the property became available, Mr. Stickland and his partners wanted to take the opportunity to make something special in the location. Mr. Stickland continued by stating that they wanted to create a small development that fiti in with thes surrounding properties. Mr. Stickland has had many conversations with surrounding property owners regarding the proposed development. Mr. Stickland stated they wanted to have a development that would include al boat slip with the purchase of a condominium unit. They have proposed nine units with nine boat slips. The condominium units will vary in size. Mr. Stickland continued by stating that there are several existing trees that they would like toj preserve ont the property during the development phase. Mr. Strickland stated that they will be using al local architect and local contractors as available. Mr. Strickland concluded by asking the Planning Board for consideration as they move: forward and for them to be allowed to contribute something positive Vice Chairperson Tootle askedi if there was anyone else who wanted to speak in favor of the request. Hearing none, Ms. Tootle asked if there was anyone who wanted to speak in  Cullipher  for the community. opposition oft the request.    Morehead City) Planningl Board  Page4 4  March 19, 2024  Tilden Collier approached the podium to speak in opposition oft the request. Mr. Collier resides at the Harborside Club. Mr. Collier stated that he has lived at] his residence for about two years. Mr. Collier is a proponent of personal property rights and does love to see the development. When he chose his current property, he had a view of the bay and that will be obstructed tremendously with the proposed development. Mr. Collier then asked what the obstructed view will do to his property value. Mr. Collier stated that is his concern because his property is his largest investment and home. Mr. Collier continued by stating that with the proposed fifty-foot buildings will be obstructive to the view of the water to many surrounding property owners. Mr. Collier concluded by stating his major concern is the property value of the Kevin Shaver approached the podium to speak. Mr. Shaver stated he is a resident of Harborside. Mr. Shaver said hei is noti for or against the proposed development at this time. Mr. Shaver stated that the board president of Harborside Club had asked him to be present at the Planning Board meeting to ask for the request to be postponed in order for the Harborside Club Homeowner Association to meet with Mark Strickland and partners and request more information tol be provided to the community before proceeding. Mr. Shaver stated that some of the property owners have concerns about soil conditions and erosion for that location. Mr. Shaver concluded by asking the Planning Board to take into consideration allowing more time to Skip Conklin approached the podium to speak. Mr. Conklin is a resident of Mariners Cove to the west of the proposed development. Mr. Conklin had comments regarding the proposed development and the proposed construction. Mr. Conklin assumed that the proposed development will be pile supported structures. The pile driving operation near the existing facilities and buildings causes a concern.. Mr. Conklin continued by stating that he lived in Mariners Cove when) Harborside was being built and the pile driving operations were: noticeable. Mr. Conklin stated that Lake Avenue is restrictive in size. The proposed development will introduce al lot of construction traffic activity into the narrow road. Mr. Conklin continued by stating that the city right of way is nicely vegetated but is very soft. Mr. Conklin said he has concerns about controlling the construction traffic of both the workers and the delivery trucks, particularly howi it affects the driveway of neighboring communities. Mr. Conklin then stated his concern regarding the end ofLake Avenue where it abuts Pelletier Creek. He asked for some consideration for the shoreline. When similar activities took place in previous years, a property owner did! bulkheading across city property to stabilize the shoreline. Mr. Conklin concluded by stating that those arel his observations and comments from aj property owners' point of view after living in the area full-time for almost twenty years in Mariners Cove and thanked the Planning With no further public comment, the Planning Board then asked questions of the Glenn Curtis had questions regarding the ownership of the boat slips currently. Ron Cullipher confirmed that the current owners oft the boat slips are. Pellitier Partners, owners of the property. Glenn Curtis then asked Ron Cullipher about the maximum height for the proposed units. Mr. Cullipher replied that the proposed units will be ofs similar heights. The roof designi is something that has not been dealt with yet. The current zoning would allow a maximum of seventy feeti in! height, but with the rezoning to 0&P, would restrict to ar maximum offifty feet. Matt Johnson asked Ron Cullipher about the rezoning choice for the request. Mr. Johnson continued stating the rezoning request is for Office and Professional Conditional Use andi ift there was consideration for ther request tol bel Planned Development. Ron Cullipher replied that in order to do a PD zoning, you must have 2.18 acres total. The property for the proposed development does not. Mr. Cullipher continued stating that multifamily development is permissible in the zone 0&P. Mr. Johnson then had a question regarding the easements on the property ard howt the landscaping improvements would affect the property to the easti in terms of maintenance of the easements. Mr. Cullipher replied by stating that there are two separate easements, one is from the northern extent oft the gravel to the water and the other is the existing gravel that is currently there which will provide access to the Styers property. The landscaping thati isi in the middle at the southern extent oft the gravel will still allow the Styers to have access tot the water based on the standing easement. Matt Johnson then asked how the easements will be maintained. Mr. Cullipher stated that most of the area discussed will be paved. Matt Johnson then asked ift therei is a fee for public water access. Annie Bunnell confirmed that there Vice Chairperson Tootle asked Ron Cullipher if there will be a survey of the area completed. Mr. Cullipher answered by stating that will be completed during the permitting process oft the project. Ronetta Gaskill asked Mr. Cullipher who determines the average finished grade. Mr. Cullipher stated that he will be determining that once the soil work is completed and isalso determined by where the water table is and where the infiltration devises to be above the  surrounding homes andt the obstructed views oft the water from his property.  meet with the developers.  Board: for their consideration. applicant and other public speakers.  willl be ai fee ini the amount of nine thousand dollars.    Morehead City Planning Board  Page5  March 19, 2024  water table. City Attorney Derek Taylor discussed with Mr. Cullipher that the easements have been provided by previous property owners that still exist and that the developer must abide by. Mr. Cullipher stated that is correct. Mr. Cullipher continued stating that there was one easement that they were not aware of until this process began, but once they became aware of the easement, the developer added to the set. Matt Johnson then stated that erosion at the end of Lake Avenue was previously discussed and asked Mr. Cullipher if there is a plan to erosion of that area. Mr. Cullipher then stated that they are going to protect the shoreline. prevent The area of shoreline at the end of Lake Avenue is owned by the Town. Glenn Curtis asked Mr. Cullipher if the applicant has considered building anything that is not as tall. Mr. Cullipher replied by stating that the applicant is trying to prevent a taller building by decreasing the maximum height from seventy feet to fifty feet. The applicant is limiting the development to only nine units and will require the additional height. Glenn Curtis then stated that the applicant should consider the surrounding areas. Ron Cullipher then stated that the architect will take those concerns into consideration and the development is less expensive if there is less height. The Vice Chairperson Tootle requested Mark Stickland to approach the podium to answer questions from the Planning Board. Ms. Tootle stated that there was a request from one of the public speakers tol have a meeting before moving forward with the project. Ms. Tootle asked Mr. Strickland if he was willing to have that meeting with them or if he has already had a meeting with the surrounding homeowners associations. Mr. Strickland stated that he has not met with them as a group but has had numerous meetings with the surrounding developments. Mr. Strickland continued and mentioned that he was given Scott) Evans's contact information and has corresponded and met with Scott Evans many times to discuss the proposed development. Mr. Strickland stated that he would be more than willing to meet and sit with the surrounding community members to share whatever information they are able to provide. Mr. Strickland stated that he can reach out to Scott Evans to get a meeting set up. Tilden Collier approached the podium to state that Scott Evans is no longer that homeowners association president and requested the contact information in order to correspond for future meetings. Mr. Strickland responded by stating that he knows that Scott Evans is no longer the HOA president and it has been a while since their last discussion regarding the project, but Scott Evans had told him that he would be the primary contact. Mr. Strickland then stated that he would be glad to meet with City Attorney Derek Taylor requested Planner Annie Bunnell to approach the podium to explain the conditional zoning process. Ms. Bunnell explained that this request is a rezoning which is a recommendation to the City Council. This is a conditional rezoning, which means that only the conditions that are agreed to by the applicant and added into the ordinance, will be allowed at this property. Ms. Bunnell continued by stating that the request is also ai multifamily plan review. When the request gets to the City Council, if the request is approved, it will be approved witht the conditions that are included in the ordinance and the applicant musts sign as the petitioner. Once the applicant has completed those steps, when they move forward with building permit issuance, the applicant would come to the Town and the Town would be reviewing the State permitting. Ms. Bunnell stated that the Town does not issue any permits without the required State permits. City Attorney Derek Taylor said that the request is still very early in the process and the: request is the plan. Mr. Taylor then reminded the Planning Board that this is the time to ask any questions regarding the plan and to add any additional conditions to the Glenn Curtis asked what would happen if the community was not conditional zoning that was agreed to by the applicant. Ms. Bunnell then replied developed that there are some areas in Morehead City in that situation currently and the current interpretation is that the area would need to be rezoned again before any development can take place att the location. Ms. Bunnell also mentioned that this request is similar to a planned development in that there are conditions that can be added, but it is also different. This request is not a subdivision. Ms. Bunnell stated that this request is a rezoning with a multifamily review, which is done together as part oft the process for conditional zoning. Once the applicant receives approval from the City Council, the applicant can move: forward with permitting. Ms. Bunnell concluded by stating that Planning and Inspections Director Sandi Watkins added that the conditions listed are the only conditions connected to the plan. The listed conditions do not specifically say that the proposal has to be consistent with the site plan. Ms. Watkins continued by stating that the options are tol leave the request as is with the listed conditions or the Planning Board can ask to tieitt to the site plan. Ms. Watkins noted that the applicant did not list that as a condition so the plan may differ from the presented plan subject to the setbacks and requested of the district. There are still standards inj place for multifamily developments and the applicant height meets those standards. Planner Annie Bunnell then mentions that the height cap is on the applicants  the  Planning Board had no further questions for Ron Cullipher at this time.  whomever regarding any questions they may have.  but the developer has to agree tot the conditions.  request, under  therei ist not another step before the Planning Board: for this request.    Morehead City Planning Board  Page 6  March 19, 2024  site plan buti is1 not listed as a condition. Ms. Bunnell suggested including the condition to have the maximum height of the development at fifty feet. Glenn Curtis agreed stating that the maximum height of the development should be listed as a condition. The Planning Board asked ift the applicant had an issue with having the fifty-foot maximum height being added as a condition. Ron Cullipher responded fort the applicant stating that the developer does notl have an Curtis Oden. Jr. made MOTION, seconded by Glenn Curtis to add condition: number: nine that no building will be in excess of fifty feet from finished grade. The motion carried Vice Chairperson Tootle closed the time for public comment and began discussions on Grow with Purpose, Policy 1.1, which reads "Support growth and development that carries forward the characteristics expressed in the Future Land Use Classifications and shown spatially on the Future Land Use Map." In the application submittals, the applicant indicated the request is consistent with this policy because the "Future Land Use anticipates traditional lower-density, suburban-style, yet promotes a miture of housing variety, including the multifamily being proposed' " All Planning Board members agreed that thei request is consistent with this policy. Grow with Purpose, Policy 1.2, which reads "Promote land use and development activities that balance economic development needs with the protection of natural resources and fragile environments." In the application submittals, the applicant indicated the request is consistent with this policy because the "redevelopment of the existing property per NCDEQ and NC Coastal Management regulations provides protection of natural resources and fragile environments. The current zone could be harmful to the quality oft the adjacent surface water because of the intensity of development (increased boat trafic) and use (fuel!). The rezoning limits development to lesser impacts, thus greatly reducing the risk to adversely impact water quality. "All Planning Board Grow with Purpose, Policy 1.3, which reads "Consider inclusionary zoning practices and programs that encourage a share of new housing development to include units priced for workforce housing." In the application submittals, the applicant indicated the request is inconsistent with this policy because worlforce housing is "not considered for the proposed development. All Planning Grow with Purpose, Policy 1.4, which reads "Promote infill and mixed-use development to encourage the preservation of environmentally sensitive lands." In the application submittals, the applicant indicated: the request is consistent with this policy because "property previously developed and no presence ofe environmentally sensitive lands to preserve. All Planning Board members Grow with Purpose, Policy 2.1, which reads "Prioritize infrastructure investments that promote development patterns in line with the Future Land Use Map." In the application submittals, the applicant indicated the request is consistent with this policy because "developers will provide the funds for development andlor infrastructure at the site consistent with the Land Use Plan. "AIIE Planning) Board members agreed that the request is consistent with this policy. Grow with Purpose, Policy 2.2, which reads "Focus multifamily and higher density residential development at appropriate density ranges and in locations with adequate water and sewer services and sufficient street system" In the application submittals, the applicant indicated thez request is consistent with this policy because "the proposed 12 units per acre is less than the adjacent surrounding planned developments. Water and sewer extensions on Lake Avenue are likely to adequately service the project. Lake Avenue is an improved public right of way extending to Peletier Creek. - Matt Johnson stated that he found the request to be consistent with this policy because itisy within the proposed units per acre and allows the use ofi nine units on the water. All Planning Board members agreed thatt the request is consistent witht this policy. Grow withl Purpose, Policy 3.1, which reads "Pursue al housing strategy that supports the characteristics (lot size, setbacks, etc.) of the Future Land Use Map Classifications." In the application submittals, the applicant indicated the request is consistent with this policy because "proposing multifamily supports the characteristics of the Future Land Use Classification for  issue with the: fifty-foot maximum height being added as a condition.  unanimously.  Land Use Consistency for the rezoning request with the Board.  members agreed that the requesti is consistent with this policy.  Board members agreed thatt the request isi inconsistent with this policy.  agreed thatt thei requesti is consistent with this policy.    Morehead City Planning Board.  Page7  March 19, 2024  Neighborhood Residential unlike the current Commercial Marina zone. All Planning Board Grow with Purpose, Policy 3.2, which reads "Encourage housing types that address missing middle housing- such as duplexes, townhomes, and clustered housing- that increase the Town's housing supply, promote walkable neighborhoods. Help diversify the housing stock, support locally-serving retail, and complement existing neighborhoods." In the application submittals, the applicant indicated the request is consistent with this policy because the "development proposed multifamily condominiums helping diversify the housing stock while supporting locally serving retail.' Matt Johnson stated that the request is consistent with this policy because it diversifies the housing stock in the area. All Planning Board members agreed Grow with Purpose, Policy 3.5, which reads "Encourage development projects that include a diversity of housing types and price points." In the application submittals, the applicant indicated the request is consistent with this policy because there are "two condominim sizes proposed.' AII Planning Board members agreed that the request is consistent Grow with Purpose, Policy 3.6, which reads "Use zoning tools to encourage the delivery of needed housing price points." In the application submittals, the applicant indicated the request is consistent with this policy because the development will "utilize the rezoning process as a rezoning tool.'  Glenn Curtis stated that a rezoning tool is not the process ofr rezoning and found the request to be not applicable. Nathan Chambers stated that the request is a rezoning with a special use and asked if the special use is considered a zoning tool. Planning and Inspections Director Sandi Watkins stated that the interpretation is up to the Planning Board. After discussion. all Planning Board members agreed that the request is not applicable with this Grow with Purpose, Policy 4.1, which reads "Encourage locally appropriate density and mix of uses that avoids creation of excess impervious surfaces and maintains the historic development pattern and character." In the application submittals, the applicant indicated the request is consistent with this policy because "proposed density is consistent with adjacent developments and redeveloping the property as multifamily avoids the excessive impervious surfaces associated with uses allowed in the Commercia Marina zone. All Planning Board Grow with Purpose, Policy 4.2, which reads "Consider development standards related to design and architecture for commercial and multifamily development that support Morehead City's character and encourage a sense of place." "In the application submittals, the indicated the request is consistent with this policy because the "owner will review applicant and architecture development standards that support the character ofMorehead City and design encourage asense ofplace. " AlI IPlanning Board members agreed that the request is consistent witht this policy. Live with Water, Policy 1.1, which reads "Morehead City supports North Carolina and federal law regarding land use and development within Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC's) and Natural Hazard Areas." In the application submittals, the applicant indicated the request is consistent with this policy because the "site (will) comply with AEC regulations set forth by NC Coastal. Management (CAMA). AlI Planning Board members agreed that the request  members agreed thatt the request is consistent with this policy.  that thei request is consistent with this policy.  with this policy.  policy.  members agreed thatt ther request is consistent with this policy.  isc consistent with this policy.  Live with Water, Policy 1.4, which reads "Support the CAMA development permit process and development standards for estuarine shoreline areas to encourage both shoreline stabilization and facilitation of proper water drainage." In the application submittals, the applicant indicated. the request is consistent with this policy becauise the "site (will be) to support CAMA development permit process and to comply with CAMA regulations. developed . All Planning Board members agreed that thei request is consistent witht this policy. Live with Water, Policy 1.5, which reads "Protect and conserve wetlands (coastal and non-coastal) for their functions that include filtering pollutants and protecting water quality, absorbing flood waters, recharging the ground water table, and providing wildlife habitat." In the application submittals, the applicant indicated the request is consistent with this policy because    Morehead City) Planning Board  Page 8  March 19, 2024  "potential minimal coastal wetland fringe along Peletier Creek; no impacts proposed at this time.' " AlIPlanning Board members agreed thatt thei request is consistent with this policy. Live with Water, Policy 1.6, which reads "Coordinate all development within the special flood hazard area with the NC Division of Coastal Management, FEMA, and the US Army Corps of Engineers." In the application submittals, the applicant indicated the request is consistent with this policy because "all development to comply with current regulations. All Live with Water, Policy 1.8, which reads "Adhere to Morehead City's Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, the) North Carolina State Building Code, and the recommendations oft the 2020 Pamlico Sound Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan and amendments. Continue participation in thel National Flood) Insurance Program." In the application submittals, the applicant indicated the request is consistent with this policy because the "project will comply with. FEMA and Town of Morehead City. flood prevention regulations." All Planning Board members agreed that the Live with Water, Policy 1.10, which reads "Ensure that critical infrastructure and public facilities are located and designed to mitigate risk. If infrastructure and public facilities are damaged in a storm, consider relocating where feasible." In the application submittals, the applicant indicated the request is consistent with. this policy because "critical facilities will have additional criteria to minimize potential impacts above and beyond Morehead City requirements." - All Planning Board members agreed that ther request is consistent with this policy. Live with Water, Policy 1.11, which reads "Use the Future Land Use Map to guide development and limit, where possible, negative impacts to environmentally sensitive areas." In the application submittals, the applicant indicated the request is consistent with this policy because the "property fis) not located near areas designated as environmentally sensitive per (the). Future Land Use. Map." " AIII Planning Board members agreed that ther request is consistent with Live with Water, Policy 2.1, which reads "Continue to support the use of Best Management Practices (BMP) in accordance with State requirements in order to reduce sedimentation and pollution run-off into nearby waterways." In the application submittals, the applicant indicated the request is consistent with this policy because "BMP's will continue to be used." AIIF Planning Board members agreed that the request is consistent with this policy. Live with Water, Policy 2.2, which reads "Coordinate the approval of development projects with applicable state agencies to ensure compliance with regulations to prevent or control nonpoint source discharges." In the application submittals, the applicant indicated the request is consistent with this policy because "site development will be in compliance with local, State, and Federal laws.' " All Planning Board members agreed that the request is consistent with Live with Water, Policy 2.3, which: reads "Ensure that new developments and expansions of existing developments comply with State requirements regarding impervious surfaces, mitigating adverse effects on: riverine and estuarine water quality and on nursery and fish habitat areas." In the application submittals, the applicant indicated the request is consistent with this policy because the "site will comply with NCDEQ Coastal Stormwater and NC Coastal Management regulations.' : AlI) Planning Board members agreed that the request is consistent with Live with Water, Policy 2.5, which reads "Prioritize sewer expansion to existing developments, particularly in areas with septic system limitations, within the Corporate Limits." In the application submittals, the applicant indicated the request is consistent with this policy because the "existing gravity sewer available on Lake Ave., however an extension by the developer may be required to service the development. AIII Planning Board members agreed that Live with Water, Policy 2.6, which reads "Promote runoff water quality best practices that maximize protection ofa adjoining shell fishing waters and Nursery Areas." In the application submittals, the applicant indicated: the request is consistent with this policy because the "site (is) not immediately adjacent to. shell fishing or nursery areas but will comply with. NCDEQ Coastal  Planning) Boardi members agreed that ther request is consistent with this policy.  request is consistent with this policy.  this policy.  this policy.  this policy.  ther request is consistent witht this policy.    Morehead City Planning Board  Page9  March 19, 2024  Stormwater regulations for State Stormwater permit compliance. - All Planning Board members  agreed thatt the request is consistent witht this policy.  Live with Water, Policy 3.1, which reads "Expand public access points and opportunities inj protected natural areas, appropriately preserving them in their natural state." In the application submittals, the applicant indicated the request is consistent with this policy because the "developer opts to provide funds to Morehead City in-lieu ofproviding public access on the property. " Curtis Oden Jr. had a question regarding the fees they must pay. Nathan Chambers stated that they are responsible for paying nine thousand dollars. AII Planning The applicant addressed consistency with the Neighborhood Residential" Future Land Use Classification by stating: "The proposed development at 113 Lake Avenue meets the above description and intent for new development by offering multifamily condominiums ofat least two sizes and possibly different price points. Redeveloping to multifamily will also aidi in diversifying the housing stock while promoting a somewhat lower density (12 units per acre versus 15-17 units pr acre associated with the adjacent multifamily planned developments) within the Neighborhood. Residential classification and also provide more open spaces with less impervious for a better transition to environmentally sensitive areas of Peletier Creek, unlike the current zoning, CM (Commercial Marina). All Planning Board members agreed that the request is The applicant addressed consistency with the "Midtown" Neighborhood Planning Area objectives by stating: "The proposed development at 113 Lake Avenue will promote and preserve the existing neighborhood and residential character by redeveloping a 1940's single family residence to multifamily condominiums, similar to the existing developments located immediately north and west. Access to Peletier Creek is available at the end of Lake Avenue public right-ofway. The property also has nine existing boat slips available to future unit owners, providing private water access. The developer opts to provide funds in-lieu and bikeability within midtown. "Glenn Curtis stated that the development is an improvement walkability to what is currently in the location. All Planning Board members agreed that the request is The Board then proceeded to evaluate the reasonableness of the rezoning request. The applicant said that the rezoning: request is reasonable and in the publici interest, because: a) The applicant described the consistency in size, physical conditions, and other attributes oft proposed tol be rezoned as "The consistency would be to develop residential units in this area versus the allowable uses within the Commercial Marina (CM) zone.' " AIIE Planning Board members agreed thatt thei request isi reasonable with the rezoning request. b) The applicant listed the benefits and detriments to the landowners, the neighbors, and/or the surrounding community by indicating that "the benefits would be to remove the uses allowed under the Commercial Marina (CM) Zone and promote residential allowed as a. special use in the O&P-CZ Zone. AII Planning Board members agreed that the request is reasonable with the c) The applicant described how the development that would be permissible under the amendment relates to the current development permissible on the tract and to the character proposed of adjoining areas by indicating that "the current Commercial Marina (CM) character to the adjoining areas. The adjoining areas are residential ini nature and zoning a is use in in the O&P-CZ zone would allow additional residential uses. All Planning Board special members  recreation  passive  Board members agreed that the request is consistent with this policy.  consistent with this policy.  public access on witht this policy.  ofproviding consistent  the property. The proximity of the property to US 70 promotes both  area  the  rezoning request.  not  agreed that thei request isi reasonable with the rezoning request.  With no other questions or comments on the request, Vice Chairperson Tootle called for Nathan Chambers made MOTION, seconded by Curtis Oden Jr, to recommend of the request submitted by the Cullipher Group, P.A., on behalf of property owner approval Peletier Partners, LLC, to rezone 113 Lake Avenue (Tax PIN #636615732771000) from CM (Commercial Marina District) to 0&P-CZ (Office and Professional Conditional Zoning District) for a proposed nine (9) unit multifamily development contingent upon the following  amotion.    Morehead City Planning Board  Page 10  March 19, 2024  applicant-agreed: upon conditions. 1. A maximum of 9 dwelling units. 2. A maximum of nine boat slips will be permitted for this development. 3. All boat slips must be deeded to condominium unit owners within the proposed development. No renting or leasing of boat slips will be permitted. 4. Uses on the property will be limited to "dwelling, multifamily", "accessory building/use", (nonconforming) "recreation use, outdoor (marina)", and signage. 5. An encroachment agreement will be required for boat slip #1. 6.. Approval will be contingent upon receipt of state permitting to include: water/sewer, stormwater, CAMA, sedimentation and erosion control (if/ when applicable and required). 7. Submission of ani instrument recorded at the Carteret County Register of Deeds which states that the garage parking must remain accessible and dedicated for vehicular parking prior to building permit issuance. 8. Submission of an approved lighting plan in accordance with 13-2.2 (K) oft the UDO. 9. Maximum of 50: feet fromi finished grade; and to approve Planning Board Resolution #2024-0002. The motion carried  unanimously.  REQUESIYCOMMENIS:  A. Planning Director Sandi Watkins reviewed commercial building permit activity inl Morehead  City that had occurred sincet the February Planning Board meeting:  Commercial. Addition to add living /day room to shelter at. 1412. Bridges Street (Hope 2. Commercial. Addition and. Alteration at West Carteret High School, 4700 Country 3. Commercial. Addition and Alteration to adde entrance door to external walk-in cooler Commercial. Alteration to upfit 5050 Highway 70for Morehead. Motors (Former  Mission) Club Road  at4702 Arendell, Street (Sandy' 's Flower Shop)  Hooter's Restaurant).  5, Commercial Newj for storage warehouse at 5008 Mattie Street. B. Planning Director Sandi Watkins reviewed residential building permit activity in Morehead City that! had occurred since the February Planning Board meeting:  1. Residential Accessory Structures:2 2. Residential. Additions: 2 3. Residential Alterations: 5 4. Residential Demolitions: 3 5. Residential DockPlerBulehead: 4 6. Residential Roof 2  ADJOURMMENT:  There being no further requests or comments, the meeting adjourned at 7:01 p.m.  RckSteig Rachel Steiger, Secretary